Message-ID: <0EBC45FCABFC95428EBFC3A51B368C9501C9C468@jessica.herefordshire.gov.uk>
From: "Randal, Phil" <prandal@herefordshire.gov.uk>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: buggy raid checksumming selection?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:27:32 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-herefordshire.gov.uk-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-herefordshire.gov.uk-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1085
Lines: 35

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:40:53AM -0200, Evaldo Gardenali wrote:
> 
>  > Uhh. correct me if I am wrong, but shouldnt it select the 
> fastest algorithm?
> 
> No, if it can choose a function which avoids polluting the cache over
> one that doesn't, it will.  Even if that means slightly less 
> raw throughput
> 
> This comes up time after time, maybe we need a printk in that case ?
> 
> 	Dave

I'm not suggesting that anyone waste any time over this, but are there any
"real world" benchmarks of the "fastest" vs "non cache-polluting"
algorithms.

Could there be any situations whereby even with cache-pollution we'd get
better performance?

I know it depends on the workload mix and amount of I/O, but...

Just curious.

Phil
---------------------------------------------
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/